#13, #14, #15 Secret Courts

My comments preceded by asterisks and enclosed in parenthesis.

Tape 13
Judge: In the matter of John Doe, otherwise known as baby boy Holm.
Parties are present with counsel, also present are the foster parents, and
Mr. Kirby, you have another gentleman seated at your table who was not
here at the last hearing.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. —–We need to address the court I guess on that
before we get started on motions as to possible witnesses being present in
courtroom and Mr. Brady Byrum.
Christian: I was going to say I would like to ask if he could assist on
Mr. Kirby: Mr. Byrum will be here solely for the purposes of taking notes
and he is a friend of the parents, and Mr. Byrum, you understand that
everything that is said in this courtroom is confidential. You can’t disclose
what goes on in this courtroom outside of court.
Mr. Byrum: Absolutely.
Mr. Kirby: We’d ask that he’s be allowed to stay and assist the parents with
notes if possible. We believe that it allowed under 12 15 129. It says the
general public should be excluded from delinquency, in need of
supervision dependency hearings, and only the parties, counsel, witnesses
and other persons requested by a party shall be admitted. Other persons as
the juvenile court finds have a proper interest in the case or work with the
juvenile court may be admitted by the juvenile court on the conditions that
the persons refrain from divulging any information which would identify a
child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court or family involved. We
are asking for Mr. Byrum to be admitted in this proceeding. He
understands that he can assist them by taking notes. He is not to disrupt
this court in any way.
(male voice): Or argue any motions.
Judge: Is Mr. Byrum a licensed attorney?
Mr. Kirby: Are you a licensed attorney, Mr. Byrum?
Mr. Byrum: No.
Judge: Department’s response?
(Male voice): Your honor, we would object to him being present. He is not
an attorney. A brief internet search of him actually appears that he is here
and has been providing legal counsel to the Holms which would be the
unlawful practice of law, and that we believe that is the sole reason why he
is present. Mom and Dad are both here. They are able to take notes, as the
department is doing. Its counsel has to take notes as well. In order to be
prepared, they have standby counsel. They have plenty of assistance to
insure that their case is able to be recorded and will put forth the evidence.
And again, he is here solely for the purpose of attempting to provide
unlawful legal advice to the Holms.
Judge: Sonia?
Sonia: I ————the motion.
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Judge, I would also object and echo the objection of the
Judge: Mr. Holm?
Christian: Yes, ma’am. I would like to state on the record that it is our 6th
amendment right to have counsel of our choice.
Judge: Ms. Holm? Anything further, Mr. Kirby?
Mr. Kirby: Nothing, your honor.
Judge: It has long been the standard and practice of this court that if
everyone does not agree that someone who is not a party under the rules or
not an attorney, is not allowed to come in. Mr. Byrum may indeed be
called as a character witness maybe if he has known these people a long
time. I don’t know. I just don’t think it is proper to allow him to remain in
the courtroom to assist in taking notes. Your clients are capable of doing
Mr. Kirby: We respect the court’s decision, your honor.
Christian: I would like to have it on record that our 6th amendment rights
are being violated.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, before we get started with any motion, would it be
proper now to ask that any witnesses be asked to leave the room? Any
possible witnesses be asked to leave the room?
Judge: ————————-If you need to testify you need to leave the
room with the exception of whatever our standard has been that
the….generally if it is the state, the state gets to have their person in. So,
who are you asking to leave? You want them to designate one?
Mr. Kirby: Yes. And I also want to know who everybody else is.
Judge: Foster parents are in the back, Mr. and Mrs. Cash.
Mr. Kirby: All right. Ms. Busby is subpoenaed as a witness for us, Ms.
Smith is subpoenaed as a witness for us, foster parents may be possible
Judge: Foster parents have a right under the statute as my understanding to
be here.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, I’m sorry. I didn’t know you———— them, but she is
definitely subpoenaed. Martin? Martin. Okay. So, if the state would like to
designate one agent for them, I understand that, and if by statutes the
foster parents stay in here I’m not going to argue with that, but certainly
Ms. Busby is subpoenaed as a witness for the parents. We would ask her
and Ms. Martin.
Judge: State’s response.
(male voice): Judge, I’d like to have one second.
Judge: And while you are all doing that, would you remove your jackets?
It’s a little cool in here to me, but I’m cold natured and it was rather stuffy
in here when we came in.
(male voice): Judge, we would designate Ms. Smith as our case agent.
Judge: Okay. Ms. Martin and Ms. Busby if you will step out. There is no
one in the lower court room so you may utilize that area over there.
Judge: Okay, we have several pending motions and I apologize where I
can get down to where they are at. We were last here on December 5th and
we took a few motions then which were addressed. Did I get all of them at
that time?
Mr. Kirby: To my knowledge, at that time, your honor. I believe so.
Judge: Well, at that time we addressed a motion to comply, which was a
motion for Guardian Ad Litem to the parents. We took care of that. The
motion about the child’s name, that was taken care of. The motion to hold
an open court, that was taken care of. Were there any other motions
pending at that time?
(Male voice): Not at that time, Judge. Well, there was a motion to dismiss.
I think you held that————————-.
Judge: That wasn’t filed until the 6th. There was, and I have it as a 10 page
docket of motion and I’m not sure that the parents intended for it to be
docketed as a motion they filed in, and we did not address it. It starts with
the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin. I think is was -actually marked as
exhibit 3. So was that something that you wanted to argue or was that just
something that was filed in?
Mr. Kirby: That’s not something that is intended to argue.
Judge: Okay. It was a 10 page docket. That’s what I thought but I just
wanted to make sure. Okay, so I guess we will just take things in order.
Mr. Kirby: Let me confer with the parents. The parents say that they did
not file this.
Judge: Okay, and well it may not have been marked, so these were things
that they took with them. What I showed you is a 10 page Statement of
Manufacturer’s Origin.
Christian: That was actually brought up to us by Tony Hamlin trying to
cross examine…
Mr. Kirby: That’s right. This is state’s exhibit but I think it is made part of
the record.
Christian: We did enter it so it was looking….
Mr. Kirby: You said it’s in our court now as a docketed motion?
Judge: There’s a 10 page docketed motion…I’m sorry. Our internet is so
horribly slow.
Mr. Kirby: This looks like it’s more than 10 pages.
Judge: Yes, it is apparently not the same document of what you are telling
me. The front of that document and this document do not appear to be the
same. This one was stamped Dec 4 and it starts manufacturer’s statement
of origin.
Mr. Kirby: That’s it. That one, the state attempted to introduce that. But it
is part of the record.
Judge: So, we have…let’s take care of this issue. We have the transcripts.
We’ve taken care of that, correct?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: There is a motion to revoke permissions given to DHR as filed by
the father, I believe, and possibly by the mother.
Mr. Kirby: I am unsure that that should be a motion. I think that that may
just have been notice to the court. Is that correct? That any HIPAA
authorization that they have give them have been revoked.
Christian: I was wondering if that was being addressed?
Judge: You want it addressed any further? You have a right to tell me what
you want to tell me about it.
Christian: Is it being revoked or not?
Mr. Kirby: I think the simple fact that they put on there that they revoke
their permission…I mean…
Christian: I would just like to have it on record that we are under duress.
Judge: Mr. Schlinker, what is your understanding of that?
Mr. Schlinker: Your honor, my understanding of HIPAA is that they can
when they elect to allow the release of information and they can revoke it.
They have notified the department. I will note if it had anything to do with
the court. With regards to duress, obviously (A) that did not occur in court
and (B) we will certainly take issue with it being under duress. I believe it
was part of an ISP. They were represented by counsel at the time, so there
was no duress. But again, I think they can certainly revoke it. It does not
change the reality of the fact that the department has received records prior
to the revocation, that it still has those records.
Judge: And I don’t think that it’s something that’s up for me to determine.
That’s the way that I have always viewed it, but that lies with the
discretion of the person whose records are being sought. Just like you said,
like a power of attorney.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Then we have on the 6th a motion to dismiss all pro se by the
parents, and on the 7th a 29 page motion to dismiss by the parents. So if we
are taking things in order, Mr. Kirby, do you folks want to argue those two
motions now or do you want to argue all the motions to dismiss together in
one bundle? And there was also a motion to dismiss notice filed this
morning, or last night at 4:42 which I did not see until this morning, and
then a motion in ——————-, and then we have a motion to alter or
amend as filed by the state as to the records which were filed before the
motion to dismiss yesterday afternoon and a motion in—————-.
Mr. Kirby: I’m sorry, your honor. I’m looking for the 27 page motion to
dismiss. Mr. and Ms. Holm filed it, I believe. It was before you got
Christian: Hand-written.
Mr. Kirby: I know there was a motion to dismiss based on lack of
evidence filed by the Holms on the 6th, but I don’t know….
Christian: There wasn’t 29 pages. There was just one page hand-written.
We included the case laws.
Judge: One was filed the 6th. One was filed the 7th.
(female voice): The second was the longer one.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. All right. We can address all the motions to dismiss at
the same time, your honor.
Judge: So, now we get to all the motions to dismiss and get everything in
order. The department filed a motion on December 9th to alter or amend
a————order. It was set for a hearing today.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, the department filed that motion seeking
to change the court standard production order. While we respect the
court in its attempts to get regularly licensed attorney’s access to
department’s records, we certainly have concerns with regards to Mr.
and Mrs. Holm having unfettered access to the agencies departments.
Specifically, we would point out the fact that the Holms have a history
of taking whatever information they glean and within 24 hours
putting it out on social media or the like, and again it is our concern
that those records would not be used for the purposes that they were
intended or that they are intended for which is for the purposes of
preparation of this hearing, but instead would be used to further
promulgate whatever it is that they are attempting to do with social
****(Perhaps whatever the state says can and will be used against
THEM. Miranda can work both ways and since they absolutely cannot get
a fair trial then the only trial left to them is the court of public opinion.
That would be a political one, and yes there is a media available. What
they are attempting to do is called “get their child back from illegal
kidnappers” and the crime is operating under color of law. Tricky to
manage and with no resources other than faith in God and the knowledge
that they are completely in the right. Let’s see how that goes.)
Schlenker: Again if they had regular counsel the department would
certainly have complied with production prior to that. But again, as an
example within 24 hours of the last hearing it was on social media
particular evidentiary issues that had come up in this hearing. For
instance…uh….specifically, I should say, not for instance, the issue with
regards to the department being able to get in the records. There was
actual comments on facebook by one of the Holm’s supporters specifically
addressing the fact that those records were not able to be admitted at that
time, and then theorizing other things that might occur. That is of grave
concern to the agency. It is also a grave concern to the agency as well
again that whatever is happening in this case is being instantly turned
around and put out into media. For that reason alone we are very
concerned with the release of our records. They are confidential in nature.
The parents view correctly in their response 26 14 8 parents have a right to
use it for purposes of a dependency case.
****(I am getting the feeling that you are having a problem with the fact
that everyone just won’t roll over and die for your kangaroo proceedings?
Sounds like somebody doesn’t like to lose. But I understand, the deck must
remain stacked against the Holms.)
Mr. Schlenker: The problem is that’s oftentimes not the Holm’s
purpose. Their purpose is to, at least it appears to be, have a cause, to
go down and picket, to again put out whatever it is that they are
trying to spin on media. Again, and that is the agency’s concern.
****(Boy, you got that one right, Mr. Attorney. Their purpose was just to
have a baby and enjoy their family, but this little child-trafficking scheme
of one small town suddenly thrust them into an unenviable position of a
forced cause. So, yes. They have a cause. And now, so do the rest of us.)
Mr. Schlenker: There are other statutes that make other portions
confidential. 38 2 6 the Holms rely on, that being only about welfare. If
you read the…you cannot take 38 2 6 outside of the context of 38 2 in
general. 38 2 is the actual enabling statutes for the Department of Human
Resources and its existence. 38 2 6 goes through and talks about DHR’s
records and then there is actually a period that the Holms then kinda skip
over and they say, well, okay, that applies to welfare and at the end of the
very statute it says that the release of those records is a misdemeanor.
****(So, here is the exact place in the law where it states this
misdemeanor offense trumps Constitutional protections and rights of
every law abiding citizen. This is a fixable problem. Thanks, Mr.
Schlenker, for pointing out where it can be found.)
Mr. Schlenker: Again, that is exactly what the Holm’s intend to do, so we
are concerned with giving them those records because we believe that they
will instantly or almost instantly be into the public domain.
****(Just like you took their baby because you knew what these parents
intended to do with him? Are you practicing psychic law? Guilty until
proven to live up to the state’s projections? You have no idea what will be
done with what YOU are doing. You won’t be able to keep it a secret
anymore. You will be held accountable. THAT is also the law.)
Additionally, many of the records that the department has, the Holms
either have or have access to. For instance, we have a copy of Mr. Holm’s
psychiatric records. Mr. Holm has access to those records as well. We have
the child’s medical record. They have gone to RMC and procured those
records. They have gone to the doctor’s offices and procured those records,
so there is very little in our record that they themselves have not had direct
access to should they have elected to have undertaken to have gotten those
records. So for that reason, Judge, we are opposed to releasing these
records to the Holms and would ask that the court would modify its order.
****(But have you doctored up or altered those records? Do you have the
file pencil marked at the top “odd beliefs”? That one you probably would
like to have, right? It’s on my computer.)
Judge: Modified to?
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would ask that there be no release of these
records to the Holms or in the alternative, that they be allowed only to be
given to, and again I don’t know that this is appropriate because Mr. Kirby
is only stand-by counsel, but again, perhaps the stand-by counsel with a
———–that they are not allowed to make copies of them or anything
else. So then, again that those records cannot be directly released to the
****(He is quite worried for which there is only the penalty of a
misdemeanor offense. The Holms have already lost their newborn. What
do they have to be concerned with further? I think the state has the
concern for their own self and what they do.)
Christian: Your honor, this is a diversion tactic to hide injustice.
****(You think? Right you are, Christian!)
Mr. Kirby: I would like to address Mr. Schlenker.
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, I object to Mr. Kirby. Mr. Kirby is not their
attorney. They represent themselves. He is merely standby counsel.
****(So which is it, Mr. Schlenker? Mr. Kirby can talk anytime he wants
until it gets too hot for you? What are you so frightened of? Those records
and what they actually reveal?)
Mr. Kirby: Uh, before we entered court today, the Holms have authorized
me to argue the motions that I have assisted with them in filing and they
have authorized me to address some witnesses in this case.
Mr. Schlenker: I would ask for a limited notice of appearance….
Judge: So that is correct?
Danielle: Yes.
Judge: This is the——issue that I have with that. Either you are standby
counsel or you are counsel. If you are counsel, you are counsel, you argue,
you question, Mr. and Mrs. Holm don’t get to do that. We can’t have both.
It is my understanding of the rule, of the way that these things work. Mr.
Kirby, if you have a different understanding, please….and if you need to
take a few minutes with Mr. and Mrs. Holm, that’s fine. I certainly
understand, but that is my understanding of the way that our court system
and process works.
Mr. Kirby: I do…
Christian: I think that you are allowed to cross-examine a witness, or two
are allowed to cross-examine the same witness.
Mr. Kirby: So the court’s advice is either one of the other?
Judge: Well, I appointed you as stand-by counsel to assist them, to help
them better understand because the dependency process in general is a
very difficult area of the legal system,
****(Maybe also because it is so corrupt and bypasses all American
freedoms? Natural shock and rage must be tempered with spin.)
Judge:…and certainly within what they were comfortable with, because
they did want to proceed pro se, to give them assistance with possible
research and filing motions which I think is well within the purview of
standby counsel to…especially in light of some of the things that do appear
in the filings. So, that occur prior to counsel being on board. But as far as
actually questioning and things like that it would in essence allow the
parents to, for lack of better words, double barrel a witness, which is
exactly what I warned Mr. and Mrs. Holm the department would not be
allowed to do nor would they be allowed to do when we started and they
chose to do this pro se as a unified couple, because they are married. Just
like I would not allow Mr. Schlenker and then Mr. Hamlin to do that.
****(No, ma’am. You stack the deck another way, insidious and
insurmountable, yet giving an appearance of some attention to courtroom
conformity but denying the individual’s rights thereof.)
Mr. Kirby: Is that just to one witness that’s on the stand or it that going to
Christian: It’s not what we were told, I believe, in the beginning.
Mr. Kirby: On December 5th, you explained it to them that they could not
both question just like you wouldn’t let the department question the
witnesses, or you know took both counsel for some department question
them at one time. That was my understanding of it. I don’t…you
know…they’ve asked me to assist of course in filing motions and doing the
research on it. And they’ve asked me to assist, since I’ve done the research
on it, to assist in addressing the motions that have been filed. I don’t know
whether that goes beyond the standby counsel or not, but I would say
certainly——————————-would be if the parents asked for
assistance to get records that would be an issue that standby counsel could
help with.
Judge: If you want to take a moment and speak with Mr. and Mrs. Holm,
you may to see what direction they would like to proceed, because they
may well or may not. I don’t know. They may very well say at this point,
Mr. Kirby,we want you to question him. This does change your role which
is fine. It just changes the flow of how things may rest today as far as who
gets to question witnesses and make argument, okay?
Christian: We see ourself as counsel. We see him as counsel and we…
****(Keep in mind here that Danielle and Christian are facing a barrage
of attorneys in the room who are all acting in a prosecutorial mode,
including the judge, yet the state seems very concerned about any upset in
the balance of power which would endanger state’s case to keep the baby.
They couldn’t even be permitted to have one person in attendance who
advocates for their position.)
Judge: I think you need to take a moment to…
Christian: —————————–
Judge: …Let me let you take a moment to address this with Mr. Kirby,
okay? Just to make sure..
****(That’s right, because the state must insure that you don’t have a
fighting chance. The baby is worth a small fortune to the general budget
fund under Title IVe.)

#14 You Must Stand Alone

My comments preceded by asterisks and enclosed in parenthesis.

Tape 14
Judge: We are back on the record, baby boy Holm, and Mr. Kirby, we were
discussing about standby counsel.
Mr. Kirby: The Holms and I have discussed it. Our understanding
was when you said you couldn’t shotgun witnesses was not that you
couldn’t have….they couldn’t be considered as two counsels. Of
course, the state has two counsels, and I’m assuming that even one of
them could take a witness and the other couldn’t question them, but
that either one of those, so I think the thing the Holms want to do is
ask that I be co-counsel with them, just the same as the state has cocounsel…
Christian: (quietly) Equality of law…
Judge: I’m sorry?
Mr. Kirby: He just said equality of law.
Christian: Equality of law.
Judge: Okay, thank you. Mr. Schlenker, anything further?
Mr. Schlenker: No, ma’am.
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Judge, I don’t —————–
Judge: I think at this point, what’s the harm in extending it?
Unorthodox, yes, but by the same token Mr. and Mrs. Holms have
allowed or are in need of assistance, I believe is what they are saying,
arguing some motions. I mean if you are going to be sitting there
writing notes to them…I mean…let’s just go forward.
****(My, my…I find American courtroom linguistics absolutely
fascinating. No allowances made in point of law, but it is more like a
wickedly choreographed dance that surrounds a hapless victim and taunts
their predicament if they cannot masterfully extricate themselves from the
grasps of their captors.)
Judge: Now. The department have made their argument as to why they do
not want these records released and for the court to amend our prior order.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, we believe that your production order doesn’t give the
department the option to not provide those records. The parents are acting
as attorneys on their own. They should have received as the attorneys of
record in this case. Even after the appointment of standby counsel, standby
counsel receive or requested those records from the department via e-mail
and I sent somebody up here not only to serve subpoenaes but to pick up
those records last Friday. They were refused. Those records were refused.
****(Of course they were. We can’t have people having a fair shake, now
can we? I mean, Pro Se can’t be treated as other attorneys. What would
the court system come to? This couple is SO dangerous to the system that
even the court appointed legal standby attorney can’t get fair treatment or
respect as the attorney he is.)
Mr. Kirby: We are saying that we certainly have a right to inspect those
records and use what is available in a trial in this matter. Just like item 6 or
paragraph 6 are additional objections to the state’s motion…
Judge: Would you tell me exactly which one is…
Mr. Kirby: This is the parent’s additional objection to the state’s motion to
amend production in the—-
Judge: What day was that filed?
Mr. Kirby: That was filed on December 12th, at 6:36 pm.
Judge: Okay, let me get to it right now. The supplement to objection?
Mr. Kirby: Yeah. Yes, ma’am. And let me go back, if I may address the
department’s statements that the Holms are divulging information on
social media about this case. That’s, my undertanding is, that’s not the
case. The Holms have had their court records since December 6th, all of
their court records since December 6th. I provided those records to them
and printed all of them all off out of court, and I would ask the state if they
have any proof if those records have ended up on social media?
Judge: Either, and that is the…hang on…I forgot what that was titled…I’m
sort of taking them in order here. Motion to produce evidence of service is
what that was called.
Mr. Kirby: No, ma’am. That’s something completely different. The court’s
production order is what we are arguing here and it says that…
Judge: Right. But you were asking for them to produce evidence of
dissemination on social media and at the bottom of this motion to produce,
the other motion that we are talking about, produce the hearing scheduled
any and all evidence they had that was for ——service of motions.
Mr. Kirby: No, that’s a different matter.
Judge: Okay. I’m closing that one out for right now. Not closing it out, I
just mean I’m shutting it down for…
Mr. Kirby: I understand. But if the state’s going to sit over there and
make the allegation that what the Holms are doing is divulging
information on social media, they may need to show some proof of
****(You think? You know, some of that courtroom stuff us oldies all grew
up watching on Perry Mason…)
Mr. Kirby: Like I say, they had the documents. They had all the court
documents since December 6th I know. I gave them to them. As far as I
know, now I don’t go crawling into people’s facebook or anything like that,
as far as I know there is no documents that have been produced on social
media, and quite honestly your honor the protective order that is issued
in this case is based on the identity of the child. Okay? Not revealing
the identity of the child. Specifically, 12 15 129. General public shall
be excluded from delinquency and need of supervision or dependency
hearings, and only parties, their counsels, witnesses, and other persons
————————————- shall be———-. Okay? Other persons as
the juvenile court finds having proper interest in the case or work in
the juvenile court may be admitted by the juvenile court on the
conditions that the persons refrain from divulging any information
which would identify the child. Further in that protection order, the
court cites K.R.B. Lauderdale County Department of Human
Resources, citing specifically by disclosing the name of the minor child
remaining the subject of the action to any person or entity in a
manner that will allow the child to be identified as involved with this
juvenile court. And B, discussing the juvenile court proceeding with
any person or entity in a manner that would allow the child to be
identified. So, based on that, the court’s protection order is all about
the protection of the child. The child has a generic name that the court
has assigned for court purposes. The child is not named. As a matterof-
fact the court denied the department’s motion to name the child at
our last hearing on December 5th. So, what I’m saying is it is
impossible for the parents to identify the child. The child is not yet
named other than a generic name given to many other unknown
children in court proceedings. So, I think we might address the
allegations, and if Mr. Schlenker has evidence that there’s been
documents that have been entered into social media I might
understand that argument for not giving us the records for DHR, but
I don’t know of any. Like I say, I don’t do that. I don’t go around
looking for stuff like that. The state’s —————statutes filled with
confidentiality of DHR records. First being Code 14 26 8, child abuse and
neglect records. They don’t specifically state what, if any, subsection
applies. But by that very statute, subsection C says that the ———,
subsection A deals with indicated and not indicated definitions, subsection
B is a central registry for reporting child abuse and neglect, subsection C
access to abuse and neglect records which states as follows: The
department shall establish and enforce rules and regulations governing the
custody and use of probation and reports and records of child abuse. Child
abuse and neglect reports of records shall be limited to the purposes to
which they are furnished and by the provisions of law which they may be
furnished. The reports and records of child abuse and neglect are related
and related information of testimony shall be confidential and shall not be
disclosed for any purposes other than to list——————but more
specifically subparagraph 6 of section C says for use by any persons
authorized by court to act as a representative for an abused or neglected
child. We would make the argument that the parents…uh…well, I can’t
speak for Ms. Wilkerson and Ms. Argo, but the parents I don’t know that
they were provided any records. I kind of doubt that they were since they
weren’t in the case for very long, but from the time Ms. Wilkerson and Ms.
Argo filed their motions to withdraw the parents have been acting as the
attorney and they’ve not been provided any records, and the records
should have been provided to them by your production order. It
doesn’t give the state the option of producing those records. It says it
shall, it shall be produced, not they may be produced, okay?
****(Thank you, Mr. Kirby, but the crime is why did you have to instruct
the court?)
Mr. Kirby: And in subparagraph 8 it says for use by any attorney or
guardian ad litem in representing or defending a child where his
parents or guardians in a court proceeding relating to a reasonable
request. The very statute that the state cites allows the production of
records to those parents. They are the attorneys of record. As of
December 5th I was the standby counsel appointed to assist them, and
specifically in getting the records they needed to prepare a defense for
this case. I’ve been denied that, they’ve been denied that. It doesn’t
give them the option we think your production order stance is good. It
doesn’t give them the option to give us those records. We should have
been given to them. If they gave them to us today, the day of the trial,
there is no way that we would have enough time to examine those
records and continue this trial today, and I don’t think the parents
are wanting to continue this matter.
****(Exactly! And now we understand just how frightened the state is of
this couple, that they would go to such extreme means to ensure their case
could not proceed with any semblance of fairness.)
Mr. Kirby: Uh…let’s move on, the states also cites section 38-2-6
subsection 8, and that states the aim of the department shall be promotion
of unified development of welfare activities and agencies of the state and
of the local governments…I’m not going to finish reading that, but
subsection 8 says the state shall establish and enforce reasonable rules and
regulations concerning the custody, use, and preservation of the records,
papers, files, and communications of the state and county departments.
Use of such records, papers, and files by any other agency or department
of government shall be limited for purposes which they are furnished and
by the provisions by which they were furnished.
Mr. Kirby: The parents are going to contend that the statute the state cited
deals with applications and records for public assistance by the
department. Let me back up just a little bit; their records for public
assistance, and I’m assuming that that means food stamps and welfare.
This, and it talks about divulging those records to grand juries and circuit
court. It doesn’t have any application to attorneys of record or standby
counsel. So, the statute they cite doesn’t deal with the records that are
sought here.
State further cites 37 38 7 13, judge, these are for child care licensing
records that that particular statute is addressing, is spelled out in the
motion that child care licensing statute has nothing to do with what’s
going on here today.
They further cite 38 9-6, subsection E, adult, ADULT protective services.
Now adult protective services, not child dependency cases. The child
here is not an adult. It is a child, a minor child, so we would contend
that that statute doesn’t apply to the Holms. And, your honor, I think
the file on this was just a stalling tactic just to keep us from getting
those records that were requested.
Mr. Kirby: Like I said, I sent up my assistant up here to search—————
on Friday, and to pick up the records. That was what was requested by the
Holms and we were denied access to the records then.
Judge: Do you want to let the guardian argue her position? Guardian?
Guardian: Yes, judge. I do believe that parents and their attorneys have the
right to have records. At the same time, I understand the department’s
position about concern for those being released. At the same time, I have a
copy of what I believe is the department’s record. Everything…the only
thing that I am aware of that the parents dumped, or could not have had
access to would of course be the department’s narrative and the
———–from which what I have is a very…is talking about a very limited
amount of information. Most of everything else I have I believe that the
parents have access to. So as far as having access to that, hopefully they
will be familiar with what was contained in those records. I believe Mr.
Kirby addressed an issue as far as asking if the department had proved that
any of these fillings or pleadings or anything have been released to the
media. I, myself, am not aware of these…not saying that there isn’t. I’m not
aware of any actual pleadings being released, but I am aware of what I
consider to be confidential information that was testified to and about in
the courtroom at the hearing at the 5th released on social media, which
does cause me concern. I understand that the child has not been named,
but I don’t think that fact in and of itself protects the child’s identity. Just
because the child doesn’t have a name doesn’t mean people don’t know
who this child is.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, first off there are…you have two names for this
child. One is John Doe, the other is baby boy Holm. They are standing on
the streets with signs that say #babyholm. That is directly related to this
child. They have a site on facebook for #freebabyholm wherein on, I
believe this was Tuesday following the last hearing, someone posted “can
anyone out there help me with a few legal questions? There are a few
things that happened during the trial that raised questions for me regarding
the legality of Judge Melody Walker’s decisions. First, the decision to
prolong the trial was done against the parent’s wishes. They need
witnesses testifying on behalf of DHR not being present. If one of the
parent’s witnesses wasn’t present, I doubt the trial would have been
prolonged. Second, evidence in the form of paperwork was trying to be
admitted in evidence on behalf of DHR that wasn’t certified. That was
objected to on the grounds of the documentation wasn’t certified and was
denied inadmissable by the judge. At the next hearing I am guessing the
paperwork will now be certified and try to be admitted by DHR. If the trial
was finished on the 5th, then this paperwork would have never got a
chance to be admitted in the first place. It is my thinking this is part of the
reason for prolonging the trial. Third, counsel on behalf of DHR
(prosecutors) Judge Melody Walker and the baby’s attorneys entered in an
outside room and denied Christian Holm access to the meeting to see what
was being discussed. I’m no lawyer but these actions seemed biased and
one-sided towards the parents and seem to lean towards siding with DHR.
Please let me know if anyone can validate my concerns of Judge Melody
Walker’s actions. Thanks to all who are helping.”
Then, they also two days later they had filed with this court a pleading
regarding a referral of this case to the FBI on a website called Medical
Kidnap. That is referenced as well as very similar things to what I just
read, and then there is also updated 12-13-16 #freebabyholm awareness
event. So again, there is an attempt to disclose information about this case,
and while it may not be the actual document itself it is nonetheless the
information that is contained in those records that is being seeped. And
again, that is the concern of the agency that information is instantly being
put out and it is affecting the identity of this child because again he has
actually two names, John Doe and baby boy Holms.
****(There you have it. The state will go to extreme measures to insure
that no one makes a peep, not a whisper, when your child is taken. You
have no rights at all to even share your pain, ask for help, protest or do
ANYTHING! Cruelty beyond belief!)
Mr. Schlenker: And again, it is identified with the parents as well. This is
now in the public domain.
Again, and I will just go back to 38 2 6 says that records are limited for the
purposes for which they are furnished and then violations of this
provisions shall be a misdemeanor and punishable accordingly. So again,
it is illegal for the release of those records, and again, that is the concern
of the agency is that these records will not be used for the purposes for
which they were created.
****(So, misdemeanor for that 38 2 6, but the state has felony for perjury
on the witness stand and kidnapping for ransom, i.e. cash. The state has
two felonies to the parent’s misdemeanor. Is there a problem?)
Judge: Mr. Kirby.
Christian: Your honor…
Mr. Kirby: No. You gonna be co-counsel. You gonna go behind me. You
got something———————————————. Your honor, I would
ask Mr. Schlenker where did that information come from. Was it off the
Holm’s facebook page?
Mr. Schlenker: It’s off #freebabyholm which is a facebook page set up by
them and their supporters with regards to this case.
Mr. Kirby: Can you prove that it was set up by them?
****(By the way, not that it may matter, but an individual who became
interested in their case set it all up and later became acquainted with them
and established a friendship. They had nothing to do with the originating
of “freebabyholm” It is similar to what I did on several facebook pages I
set up to represent the Holms and this cause. They were uninvolved and
unaware with any of that, but were informed later.).
Mr. Schlenker: Obviously, I cannot. But there is no place else that
information would have come from. It would not have come from the
agency. It would not have come from the GAL. There is one source of that
information. That would be the Holms.
****(Au contraire, but I propose that the state has the primary interest in
further maligning these parents and undermining both their support and
their credibility. A leak, perhaps? Plausible deniability, correct?It would
be soooo easy to set them up.)
Mr. Kirby: There is a number of people in this hearing, December 5th, and
it doesn’t mean….I mean a number of people….more than there are in here
right now, and it doesn’t mean that it came from the Holms. Even if it did,
judge, it is not a document that is entered into social media and it
doesn’t…..baby Holm is the generic court name for the child, John Doe or
baby boy Holm…I mean anybody, anybody would assume that baby Holm
could be their child, but it doesn’t name that child specifically because that
child doesn’t have a name to be addressed. Now, the department tried to
name that child, Malachi? I think it was Malachi, and you denied their
motions to name that child Malachi because it was not the parent’s wishes,
and we believe that to be proper.
Judge, as a pattern of practice with DHR, they’ve been given the attorney’s
record, the records prior to coming to court. That’s just a pattern of
practice with DHR because that’s what your order says. We think they
should have to abide by that order now, and the fact…really, probably
the fact that they haven’t…they should be found in contempt. Even
after the appearance of standby counsel. I requested those records to
discuss the defense of the Holms and this trial today! Those records
were denied to be given to me! I am a regularly licensed practicing
attorney in the state of Alabama, and even though I was standby
counsel one of my duties as standby counsel was to get them records
that they needed for trial.
Now, I’m not sure what’s all in DHR’s records, but it very well could be
something that was used today in their defense. And the other criminal
cases that the state cites in there has to do with defense for criminal
defendant, and getting public records..DHR records to try to exonerate
somebody’s client. That’s not what we have here. This is not a criminal
case. This is a child dependency case and the pattern and practice it
has been for DHR to supply those per your order and that’s not been
done in this case.
****(Why not? What is so special about this case that it requires
prejudicial treatment?)
Mr. Kirby: And we will address more in the motion————————,
but I’m asking also that anything that might be on those records not be
able to be used here today in testimony or admission into evidence. We’ve
not had the chance to inspect those records.
And I think even if you did an in camera review and allowed us to attend,
you know that would have been fine. We could have gone over the records
together. But their not producing them, and they are not here to produce
them. That’s all I have, your honor.
Judge: Ms. Miller.
Ms. Miller: Judge, I don’t have anything further.
Mr. Schlenker: The purpose for citing the variety of statutes, as well, was
to point out that this is not just something with regards to child welfare
records. But again, all of DHR’s records are confidential, and even in a
criminal case parents do not necessarily have unfettered access to their
record, and again, that is part of us producing all those criminal statutes.
There are limitations on what is able to be produced. As far as some of
those records, for instance, the mental health records that have been
brought up, Mr. Holms knows where those medical records are. Mr.
Holms is able to get those records if he elected to. Mr. Holm has had the
opportunity to issue a subpoena for those records if he elected to. He has
had access to the majority and probably has copies of the majority of those
records. Again, those are not necessarily the records that DHR should be
in the business of turning over in general anyways…
****(So what if the records don’t match up? What if the records are
falsified or have been provided by someone who was not authorized?
What is DHR desperately hiding from even a licensed attorney like Mr.
Mr. Schlenker: because again they are not DHR’s records. We cannot
necessarily speak to their authenticity. There are other issues that go into
****(You betcha, like issues of lying, fraud, perjury on the part of DHR.
Those records better be kept safe from the public, Mr. Schlenker. They are
not authentic, although you use them as such and use them against the
Holms to keep their child captive from his parents.)
Mr. Schlenker: And again, those are all things that the Holms have had
access to. Those are all things that again, I think the court can weigh the
fact that they have apparently elected in the last week to not try and get
copies of those either. And they have known that. Mr. Holm signed that
release. He has known since the day of the signing of the release that the
department was going to try and get those records. He has done nothing on
his own to attempt to get those records, and again, we do acknowledge
that it is the pattern and practice of the agency to give those to licensed
attorneys because licensed attorneys, we believe, will follow the rules.
****(No they have copies. They want to see your copies and compare. Mr.
Schlenker, were you aware you use the word “again” constantly when you
are nervous?)
Mr. Schlenker: It is also the pattern and practice in this case that the rules
are not necessarily followed and the information regarding this case and
what is happening in this courtroom is being divulged to the public. And
there, again, is the agency’s concern, and we have when asked provided
that proof. We have provided the information. I understand Mr. Kirby
doesn’t like it, but again, that is what is being done in this case and that is
the agency’s concern.
Mr. Kirby: You honor, I think that Mr. Schlenker addressed the
authenticity of his records basically saying that they can’t authenticate the
records, but…
Judge: We are not arguing that point…
Mr. Kirby: Right. I understand that…But the records that DHR has and
plans to introduce at trial should be and if they were…if it was done with a
valid HIPAA waiver that’s an argument that we have too.
Judge: Okay, are we doing all these arguments together because right now
we are doing the right to remanding your response…
****(Having difficulty Ms. Judge? It is complicated sometimes when the
state fails to get away with what normally works out fine. Kudos for your
efforts to distract…)
Mr. Kirby: Right. Well, I’m using the HIPAA part as part of my response
to Mr. Schlenker’s statements…
****(As she very well knows…but she didn’t become judge by being dull
of mind, now did she?)
Mr. Kirby: We don’t know that that is a valid HIPAA release. Matter-offact,
I don’t think it is just from the short time that I had to view it on
December 5th. That’s part of the DHR records. That’s something that
should be turned over to us. That’s not something that he can go to
Savannah Counseling where they got these records and get. That’s their
records. What else is a part of their records that we don’t know about? We
should have the right to see those records to see what everything is that is
Guardian: Judge, I just have more of a quick question. I know when we
were here last time, and correct me if I’m wrong, I think Mr. Kirby where
you provided access to those…specifically those counseling records from
Savannah Counseling…
Mr. Kirby: For the short time just prior to trial for an opinion as to GAL.
That’s the only time I seen those records.
Judge: Have you made any contact with prior counsel to obtain their file?
Mr. Kirby: I did contact Ms. Argo. Ms. Argo said that she would have to
look for those records. We called her again yesterday. I have had no
response from Ms. Argo.
****(This should help others understand the wisdom the Holms used in
dismissing their “court appointed” attorneys who actually do represent
the state who pays their salaries, and not the Holms. Hopefully, others can
learn what a tragic mistake it is to trust the state.)
Mr. Kirby: I did not contact Ms. Wilkerson, but certainly the department
can answer if they gave those records to either Ms. Wilkerson or Ms.
Argo. I don’t believe for the short time that they were a part of this case
that the department produced those records to either one of them. I can’t
speak for either one of them personally and know that they don’t. I know
that I have given a request to Ms. Argo that if she had something to please
get that to me. And we called…that was last week. We called again there
yesterday and Ms. Argo wasn’t there. She wasn’t available. I don’t think
that her assistant could find anything, so I’m not sure if they were provided
to them or not.
(whispering between Christian and Mr. Kirby) Oh, well, the Holms
apparently made a request to Ms. Argo to get the records and get any
records that she might have. And they’ve not been given those records.
And like I say they didn’t even have record of their court files. I———–
December 6th.
Judge: Anything further from the state?
Mr. Schlenker: No.
Judge: Okay, Mr. Kirby, you also mentioned your argument about holding
DHR in contempt. Do you understand that would be a separate if you so
elected to choose, correct?
Mr. Kirby: I do understand. Yes, ma’am.
Judge: I have real concerns about things that may have been disseminated
on social media. I don’t know where it came from. You can sit there and
say they can’t identify this child but if it is identified as baby boy Holm or
baby Holm we have a small community. Come on…people can identify
that it is indeed Mr. and Mrs. Holm’s child. Concerning if it is indeed
correct that what was relayed or read into the record as far as these two
exhibits which would be states 6 and 5, which would be a picture of Mr.
Holm reported to be but not admitted and Mr. Holm’s reported counseling
notes not admitted…if those were indeed the documents discussed, then it
would only have come from someone within this courtroom. Further, the
court has concern if it is noted on social media that we had a improper
meeting, Mr. Kirby, you were also part of that meeting as standby counsel
and that was explained. As a matter-of-fact I think you came out and said,
hey, we forgot these are pro se parties because we are just so
generally…but nonetheless they were represented in that one little meeting
and…if there is an issue with that we need to address that and I will give
you ample time with your clients to address it. As far as the reference to an
FBI investigation, there is some document filed, but I wasn’t real sure
what it was other than a thing filed by the parents. It certainly didn’t have
a…and that may be the manufacturer’s statement that we were discussing
earlier. Nonetheless, there is information being leaked out. Concerning.
What I’m going to do is I’m assuming or would hope that the department
has a copy of their records with them.
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: We are going to take a moment and we are going to go over this
and I’m going to review them in camera with Mr. Kirby and Mr. and Ms.
Holm if they want to be in there, and we’ll take a look at them and see
what’s there. And then I’ll make a determination from there. I am going to
go ahead at this time and say that I am not happy with the department. I
don’t remember when this baby was taken into care when we started this
proceeding but it is the custom and practice of this court in our standard
motion…our standard order of production…I don’t know whether or not
that was complied with as far as prior counsel of record, but the
department did not use the ————-to amend their record until
December 9th, and again, don’t know what happened there to precipitate
that…if there was some filing or something that appeared. Oh, Mr. Kirby, I
guess it’s just the technology age thing with us..(laughter)
and then the parent’s response to that was not filed until later, so that
seems to be what triggered the response and yours may have been…it may
have all accumulated with your office going up to attempt to get records…I
don’t know.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: So, I think that at this point what we are going to do is we are going
to stand in recess and Mr. Kirby, and certainly counsel for the department
and the guardian want to be in the room, so be it.
Mr. Kirby: Now, Judge, let me ask you. Mr. Schlenker says that he’s got
the entire department file. Does he have all the caseworker notes, ISPs and
all that stuff?

#15 License to Steal

Judge: All right. We are back on the record on JU 880——After doing an
in-camera review of the records with counsel and the parents and the
guardian ad litem, the counsel for the parents, Mr. Kirby, made some notes
here that I guess Mr. Hamlin reviewed these notes…
Mr. Kirby: No, I don’t think I did. I didn’t look at their personal notes. I
marked the records that I thought we needed and some of them are
multiple page records with just a notation on the first page…of the
counseling records. I marked those as one thing that we needed but
——-all those nine pages.
Judge: Okay. All right.
Mr. Kirby: Are we on the record?
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: One thing that I did not see in there and I would like to know
where it is is the affidavit that was used for the pickup order. It’s not of
record in the court filing and it’s not in there. That’s the reason I’m not so
sure that that’s a complete DHR record.
(Thank you Kirby…This is just right. There was NO sworn affidavit in
order to be able to get a pick up order to steal our child. Thanks for
pointing that out.
Pick up order reads, “Based upon a SWORN STATEMENT presented to
the juvenile court that the above named child needs to be placed in
detention or shelter or other care, the court finds the following:
So, here is the ultimate truth…..there was NEVER A SWORN statement
under the penalty of perjury written by anyone that this statement above
was the TRUTH….and HOW can it be truth when we were two capable,
loving parents right there, right then caring for OUR child when he was
stolen??? This “pick up order” was “signed” more than likely with a
stamp by the judge AFTER court hours, AFTER they took our child
without a sworn statement SWORN TO by ANYONE who was actually
present in our presence…. The petition full of FALSE ACCUSATIONS was
submitted and signed and NOT SWORN TO AFTER the pick up order was
issued and was signed by SOMEONE WE HAD NEVER MET. The petition
was put in based on hearsay and without validation AFTER they
The Sheriff, child’s crime detective who was there that night, who actually
removed the child from Danielle’s breast while feeding, (and who later
stated on the stand she never touched the baby), admitted on the stand
there was NO EMERGENCY. So, how can the judge give the OKAY to sign
a pick up order WITHOUT a sworn statement showing an actual
emergency!!? And the “emergency” this judge is claiming is that a
newborn child has NO PARENT TO CARE FOR HIM, which is
Judge: Can you tell the affidavit that’s used?
Mr. Kirby: On the juvenile pickup order it said the sworn statement or
affidavit was submitted I guess kinda like a search warrant. You know, a
police officer has to swear or have an affidavit saying why he needs the
search warrant…
Christian: Evidence and facts.
Mr. Kirby: That was one of the things that was on the juvenile pickup
order that was checked that said there was a sworn statement or affidavit
made….to get the juvenile pickup order.
Judge: And I may be able to answer that question. Generally what I have
done in the standard pattern and practice is when there is an emergency
situation or deemed to be an emergency situation for a pickup order,
Judge: …what the department has done is sent a caseworker up here, I put
them under oath in front of me and have them tell me what is the situation
that gives rise to the emergency that would denote a pickup order as
opposed to a summary removal.
(Every single day that we have protested with signs on Ross Street, outside
of the courthouse, the judge NEVER stays past 5pm. She is out the door
between 4:30-5:00 pm….this “emergency pick up order” was “signed”
(we think stamped by someone else), at 5:20pm AFTER they had already
kidnapped him from our hospital room at 4:30pm. The pick up order was
then filed into the court system at 5:24, WITHOUT A SWORN
AFFIDAVIT…..and if this is true, Mrs. Walker, where is the RECORDING
There isn’t one! Probably because NO ONE SWORE UNDER OATH OR
Mr. Kirby: Who would that person have been?
Judge: I believe Stacey Jackson without me looking back…
(Oh, so why do you think that Mrs. Walker?? Because it would HAVE TO
BE STACY JACKSON, RIGHT? Yes, it would have HAD to be Stacy
Jackson because you CANNOT LEGALLY have a sworn statement via
TRUTH…..Stacy Jackson was at the hospital with us at that time, it was
impossible for her to be at the courthouse at the same time!! And Stacy
Jackson was the one claiming all of the false accusations in order to even
Mr. Schlenker: I think it was Carrie Pollard.
(Good one, Schlenker….reminding the judge that IF this were true, in
order to go along with their illegal process, being that Carrie Pollard was
the one who signed the petition and filed it into court WITHOUT A
have been the one to give a sworn statement to the judge right???)
Judge: May have been Carrie Pollard.
(Oh, so now you are saying maybe it was Carrie Pollard? Which one was
it Mrs. Walker? The one who actually MADE the false claims and was still
at the hospital with us at the same time the order was signed AFTER they
took our baby, OR the one who never met us and actually signed off on the
false claims without knowing the truth and filing in a petition of
hearsay??? You Don’t remember which one?)
****(All these legal little technicalities. They don’t matter, unless of
course they are being brought up for state’s defense. Then, that is ALL that
Judge: You want to do the records thing first and then let’s do that?
(Want to change the subject now, eh?
******Take Notice, this was NEVER brought up again!!!! Judge did a
great job yet again at diverting the entire topic because THIS IS ILLEGAL
HERE……But, NO…..yet again we have been diverted….)
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
(Yes, Kirby, because you care more about your bar license than our baby
and innocent family.)
Judge: In reviewing these records, there are several things…as a matter-offact,
the multitude of these records are things that would have been
available readily to the family, I say family, parents, individually or
collectively. In particular, a lot of them seem to be records that may or
may not have been generated by Mr. Holm or the counseling
notes…Savannah counseling notes are certainly his records and he could
get them. There are a few, and you have made notes here Mr. Kirby on
these it looks like, the narrative of the department and things like that, and
I do think that that is something that should be turned over to the parents
and counsel. However, with that, these are confidential records not for
facebook, not for friends, confidential. And I don’t know that I can make it
any clearer that that. And Mr. Kirby, what our standard practice has been is
that we give the records, we being loosely my order says DHR give it to
the lawyer to give it to court for clients, and that’s where I would like to go
with this, and that we keep the standard practice and pattern especially
now that you are co-counsel.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. But, your honor, obviously the Holms don’t want
to continue this case but I think there’s important records in there.
(And it’s not all of them!! Where are our NEGATIVE DRUG TEST
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Kirby: We reviewed them but we didn’t have a chance to examine
them thoroughly, and I don’t want to delay this action any further. So, I’m
not quite sure what we do about that. They should have been…those
records by the admission of court some of those should have been
produced to us, especially I guess when I requested them in the court, and
maybe I can address that in my motion in———————because I think
I asked for any and all records that the state didn’t produce to not allow
any testimony concerning that or be used.
Judge: So are you arguing your next motion?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I’m just saying we can get to it in the motion in limine
but that’s what————————I mean, in my opinion they couldn’t do
Judge: I’m going to give these to you because they have a lot of your notes
on them rather than me holding them up here and looking at them.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. Thank you. But…it’s just like with any defense or
any motion if you are at any trial the others side withholds records from
you that you need to get, you can’t…you can’t build the strongest defense I
guess you can’t possibly build.
Judge: So you are at this point, just very clear, the motion to alter is
denied. You have the records now.
(No, judge…actually we don’t!! Where are our NEGATIVE DRUG TEST
RESULTS? Where are the narratives of when they spoke with Christian’s
family members soliciting information from them about Christian without
his consent? Where are those narratives? Not everything is there! )
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Okay. Just getting it clear in my mind. So, the next motion that I
have is the motion to produce evidence of service.
(Wait, what about the subject of the illegal pick up order you supposedly
signed to kidnap our child?? You diverted that topic and said we were
going back to it after the DHR records were discussed. Why are we now
continuing on? This case should be dismissed.)
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: If I don’t go and checklist it down I will forget where I’m from. So,
Mr. Kirby, are you arguing that motion?
(You know that, because you are purposely forgetting your illegal pick up
order. )
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: I did not set it for hearing. That was my mistake, but we’re here.
The department had notice of that. It was filed the 9th. Is there any
objection the court move on it and let’s go ahead and take care of that
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, let me look at this one. No ma’am.
Judge: All right, Mr. Kirby. Go ahead, and Mr. and Mrs. Holm, whoever.
Mr. Kirby: Okay, you want me to argue this motion? Okay. Judge, with
our motion to have DHR to produce all evidence of service on the
Holms, the Holms were not notified, they weren’t given their records,
they weren’t notified of court filings, especially subpoenas that went
out to Savannah Counseling,they weren’t notified of any motions filed
by the department…
Judge: Okay, what time frame are you talking about?
Mr. Kirby: Well, I don’t think they have received any motions. The
only thing they have received is starting with your order that
addressed the ex parte filing of DHR caseworkers…I mean…they’ve
received orders since then but they haven’t received any motions.
****(Court appointed attorneys get paid by the state. Who do you think
they will represent?)
Judge: Okay, and you’re talking about…
Mr. Kirby: To December 5th…
Judge: Okay, let me go back and look.
Mr. Kirby: And if I’m correct, that’s November 15th.
Judge: All right, so up until what point, let’s see…up until November 3rd
they had counsel.
Mr. Kirby: They had counsel. Yes.
Judge: And if counsel Goddard didn’t get motions to them, that’s between
them and counsel is my theory on that.
****(But we have already seen that DHR is not willing to play by the
standard rules and there is no guarantee that any motions were given to
counsel or that counsel acted upon any of them properly.)
Mr. Kirby: I understand that.
Judge: Are they saying they didn’t get things from Ms. Wilkinson and Ms.
Christian: That’s correct.
Judge: And when they terminated their counsel did they come in and make
a change with the court system as far as their address?
Mr. Kirby: Evidently there was a change made to P.O. Box 243? 438, I’m
sorry, and—————– because they started receiving the court’s orders at
that time, but they did not receive any motions, subpoenas or anything else
from the state.
Judge: Okay. Let me see when the change was made here. Notice of Intent
by non party subpoena was filed by Jennifer Argo. That was in November
before she withdrew. Uh…it says 11-15, HIPAA order issue copy mailed to
attorneys of record, copy mailed to Danielle and Christian Holm,
————–on—————–. Now whether or not the clerk’s office had
their correct address… I cannot tell what would be the correct address on
here, and if Mr. and Mrs. Holm did not come up here after they relieved
counsel, and again I understand they are uneducated of the law. But I am
trying to see what else is here. What other motions? And it may
be…uh…there was a motion for a restraining order copy emailed to
attorney of record e-mailed to copy to Cleburne County DHR, copy
mailed to Christian and Danielle Holm. So, it appears that the clerk was
sending it out and I’m not seeing where anything was returned…
(Why is Mrs. Judge trying so hard to justify us not getting any mail from
Mr. Kirby: Yeah, but what address was the clerk sending it to because I
have a juvenile pickup order here that it was supposed to have been served
on Danielle and Christian Holm? Address is Cheaha State Park and I
believe the clerk would…
(We were never served with a pick up order, NOR the accusations against
us. We did not know what we were being accused of until we were already
sitting in the courtroom. We had no opportunity to rebut any claims. And
our address was NEVER Cheaha State Park.)
(female voice): And judge, if I can interject. I was looking back at the
petition and that;s actually was where their address was listed, so…
(We never gave anyone that address, because it was not our address.)
Judge: And counsel was appointed at shelter care.
Mr. Kirby: Judge, if you’ll notice too, there was no service of the petition
on the Holms.
(Yes, Kirby. That is correct.)
Judge: The Holms? Okay, it’s my understanding that this is the procedure
in juvenile dependency, and correct me if I am wrong with your
understanding, once a parent makes appearance they are deemed served
whether it is shelter care, adjudication, whatever phase of the proceeding,
and personal service is not needed after that fact.
****( So, what happens when the parents don’t even know and have never
been served? Too bad for them? Is that not why we have a court system
providing that protection called “notice of service”? Apparently in
juvenile court this is just ONE more thing that does not exist to protect
parental rights. Is this legal? I think not.)
(Right, and we have the proof we were never served with our accusations.
We have a ripped up piece of notebook paper and written on it by Stacy
Jackson who was at the hospital and had a hand in kidnapping our
child….she wrote down the court date, and time and her phone number.
Why would she write on that if we were served with anything?? So, “We
are kidnapping your child illegally. You better be at court, and you have
no idea why, to be able to prepare effectively, and you will not be served”)
Judge: Mr. and Mrs. Holm were here at the shelter care. They were
represented by counsel. They testified. Copies of the petition are
historically given to counsel of record at that time, and I would have no
reason to believe that Ms. Argo and Ms. Wilkinson did not have the copy
of the petition to go over with their respective clients at that time.
****(Nice. But where is the proof of all of those statements. That is why
we call it PROOF of service.)
(And NO, we were NOT given this petition NOR the pick up order which
states our baby who we JUST GAVE BIRTH TO does NOT HAVE ANY
Mr. Kirby: Well at the shelter care hearing with my understanding
was there was no petition available.
****(And apparently none in the court record either.)
Mr. Kirby: That’s my understanding. Now, I was not here. The only thing I
think the Holms said that was available to their counsel at the time was the
pickup order.
Judge: Uh…I don’t see…the Petition was dated 10-11 it looks like? 10-11
final report, 10-11..Petition was dated. I would have no reason to….and
again it is the standard pattern and practice that copies of the petition are
made and given to counsel of record, and if you’ve not talked to Ms. Argo
and Ms. Wilkinson about that….and I need you to tell me where are you
going with this motion? What do you need from me?
****(Justice for the maligned parents who are being railroaded by a
system which can’t even follow its own laws in this case.)
(Judge, what do we need from you?? Common sense! Truth!
Accountability! Justice!! OUR BABY!!)
Mr. Kirby: I’m saying that…it’s like this. The motion for order to
compel the parents to cooperate with the Cleburne County DHR–
there is no service to the parents on there. The only people that were
served with it were Tony Hamlin, Carrie Pollard (she is a case worker
we had never met at that time!!) who is listed as a pro se litigant in
this matter, and Allison Miller.
****(Yet the state puts several representatives on the Holm’s facebook
page in the early days to repeatedly reprimand the parents refusal to
comply with the state. No one, especially the Holms, had a clue what they
were referring to, yet court personnel all appear supremely confident in
their judgments. This is early proof of leaking classified courtroom
material to the public and withholding key information to the Holms who
actually had a right to have it.)
(Apparently DHR repeatedly put in motions to COMPEL US TO
COOPERATE. We were not aware of these motions. Were never told to do
anything to cooperate….and then in court after not serving us with these
motions, they then said we haven’t been cooperating. The judge denied
these motions trying to force us to cooperate….so we have never been in
contempt of ever cooperating.)
Mr. Kirby: Uh…there’s a subpoena request …
Judge: That motion was ————to last year.
Mr. Kirby: Uh, huh. I understand that.
Judge: Why wasn’t this issue raised then?
Mr. Kirby: There is a notice of intent to serve a subpoena on Savannah
Counseling filed by the department on 15th of November, notice of service
to Allison Miller and Tony Hamlin. No service on the parents.
(Because they did not want that to be known by us for us to then OBJECT
TO IT….Because we WOULD have. And we WOULD HAVE revoked their
permissions at that point)
Judge: And just for the record, when those are pushed through the court
system, I don’t even look at them, just no action so I would not have
looked at that.
****(But you are now. What do you think should be done about it?)
Mr. Kirby: Okay, but what do we do about the parents not having an
opportunity to quash that subpoena? I mean, if they would have
received notice of the motion then they could at least file a motion to
Judge: I understand.
(Do you? Or do you just not care?)
Mr. Kirby: Here again, let’s see that’s the HIPAA order. It shows state
park, Cheaha State Park. There was a motion by the state, course it’s
been denied, but there was a motion by the state to appoint a guardian
ad litem for the parents, said notice date 11-17, and by 11-17 the
clerk’s office was aware of where to mail anything for the parents…
****(Guardian for the parents? This is not talking about one for the child.
They are really pulling out the stops to win this case, now aren’t they?)
(Yes, the way Kirby got into our case, was apparently, when our hearing
started on December 5th, the state was trying to appoint a guardian for
us, because they believed we could not handle our own affairs. Kirby met
with us that morning and determined we did not need a guardian. He told
the judge, and the judge appointed him as standby counsel instead. Once
you have any type of counsel you deem yourself incapable of handling
your affairs, so of course they want to push a guardian or an attorney on
to drag you through their fraud.)
Judge: So they would have mailed an order but not necessarily a motion
because it is not the clerk’s responsibility to mail them out…
Mr. Kirby: The parents haven’t been served with the motions as
attested to on the state’s…on the motions. Uh, now down at the bottom
at the ———–certificate of service, I mean it is standard practice
pretty much for all attorneys to notify who has been served with the
motions. The parents were due the motions, the state said they served
the motions. I wanted them to bring proof in here that they served
motions on these parents and how they tried to serve them. Did they
try to serve them by mail and if it was returned? If so, I can
understand that. If not, I don’t? If they didn’t try to serve them at all
and they are attesting to the fact that they served it on all parties pro
se of the attorneys of record.
****(So the state lies. What happens when there is proof? Here is proof
now. What will happen to the state for lying and acting in collusion
against these parents?)
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
****(Her voice on the audio sounds like a movie. Did she mean to sound
that worried?)
(She is hoping Schlenker has a really good answer for this one)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, the in-controverted testimony in this trial so far is
that the Holms have not provided an address to the department, the GAL,
or to the court even. The address that the court’s office is using is really
generated by random by one of their 34 page filings where it happens to
THAT WE CHECK DAILY) . There is no idea about the department to this
date where they are at (BUT YOU JUST STATED YOU KNOW OUR
MAILING ADDRESS). The last address that we have for them comes on
November 3, 2016, in a filing by their attorneys when they were
withdrawing of 1000 No. Vilon Hwy. #252, Tucson, Arizona, 85541 (Yes,
you are correct and we still get mail from there as well!! We have it
forwarded every 2 weeks!).
That is their address. They have not updated anyone else with that. We do
not know where they live (Again, you have our mailing address). They
have refused to tell us that. They have refused on the witness stand to tell
us that. They have unclean hands to come in here and argue that they have
been denied an opportunity to notice when they have denied themselves
the opportunity to be notified of anything. Again, the only address the
department has currently for them would be 1000 No. Vilon Hwy. So that’s
it. We don’t know that P.O. Box address is correct. We don’t know what is
correct. (And we STILL get mail from Arizona and we have NEVER
received anything from DHR at that address)
****(Notice how this is done. Sliding away from the perjury issue, he
makes a non issue into something that is the Holm’s fault. Proof of service
is done, as Mr. Kirby mentioned, by registered mail at the post office when
someone has a P.O. Box. Standard practice, but watch how Mr. Schlenker
slinks away from the culpability of the state and refocuses the court onto a
non issue since the parents are obviously sitting in every court session.
Failure to provide their exact location at all times is vital for the Holms in
their attempt to survive this hostile group whose intent remains on their
personal demise. Just because this comes from the state does not render
them less dangerous, rather they are more so.
Unclean hands, eh? So, maybe since the Holms have been remanded to
remain in the state you might consider the local P.O. Box more correct
than Arizona? Maybe? But that doesn’t get you out of Proof of service
requirements, Mr. Clean.)
Mr. Schlenker: We don’t know…well one rumor has them living in
Georgia. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know how to get in
touch with them. We have a phone number…
****(Maybe you might attempt a call.)
(And they will never be told where we live, so that we are able to sleep at
night!! Does anyone know of Nancy Schaeffer and her murder inside of
her home??? And Georgia?? Where Christian grew up his entire life??
No, we do not live there either. Nice try though.)
Mr. Schlenker: …that occasionally they will answer but that is not good
enough for service of process. So, as far as my motions have been done,
they’ve been filed at 1000 No. Vilon Hwy. Cause again, in the file that is
the last address of any document of any one of record for the parents.
****(You, sir, have only made sure they could purposely not have received
notice of anything. We are not fooled.)
(LIES, LIES, LIES!!!!! We STILL get ALL of our mail from this same
address and have the entire time. We have a very good standing
relationship with the manager there, as it is a forwarding service, and they
forward our mail every 2-3 weeks. It is now April and we have received all
mail over the last 6 months and not ONE THING from the state of
Judge: Okay, and that address was gleaned from the motion to withdraw
by counsel November 3.
Mr. Schlenker: Correct. It was November 3rd.
Judge: That is the way you are supposed to do, was to withdraw.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, it is also the address that the mother had used in her
medical records when she went to the hospital. So, apparently it is an
address that they have used on multiple occasions.
(And we still sometimes use it!! We have a few different addresses we use
to get mail, and so still if they were to mail something there NOW, we
would get it…They have NEVER mailed anything there!)
Judge: So, we came in. We argued these motions that Mr. Kirby says my
clients didn’t get State has a valid point. We sent it to this address right
here, which I do remember very clearly. Of course, Mrs. Holm hasn’t
testified yet but Mr. Holm saying I’m not giving him where I live.
****(But they did provide P.O. Box. Did you forget?)
(2 things going on here…Judge painting a picture yet again, that we are
deficient with our information giving the state the OUT they need out of
this topic and secondly, the judge is now trying to put on guilt of us not
sharing our PHYSICAL address with criminals.)
Judge: Nonetheless, with all that we are now to the point of these recent
motions which would be the motion to alter —————. Did you receive
Mr. Kirby: I did receive that and I passed that on to the Holms.
Judge: Okay. So since then is there a motion ———–or pending in the inbetween
that we don’t know for sure about notice? Because I think I just
went through and cleared up everything with the exception of the 18 page
document Mr. and Mrs. Holm filed and I wanted to make sure that that
wasn’t a motion that they argued. So, my understanding was that
everything had been taken care of.
Mr. Kirby: Right. I mean the motions have been addressed. You know,
I guess my question, your honor, is if clerk’s office can get a good
address for the Holms then why can’t the state? And they put on their
certificate of service they served them but they didn’t put where they
tried to serve them.
****(Because they didn’t)
(They absolutely never served us. The COURT has had our P.O. Box here
locally the entire time, that we were forced to get. And our Arizona
address is STILL valid and we still receive this mail.)
Mr. Kirby: All it is, is that it says a generic I’ve serve this on counsel
of record and all parties pro se. Just like on the Holm’s certificate of
service to the state, it notices both Mr. Hamlin and Mr. Schlenker and
Allison Miller. That way, if there is a question about address then we
know that there is an issue. When you generically certify that you
served all of this stuff on any party you are opening yourself up to
this. I guess most importantly what we would argue would be the
notice of intent, the 15 day notice of intent of the subpoena to
Savannah Counseling. For them to receive no notice, but by that time
the court already had their P.O. Box 438 written down. That’s a good
address. The Holms have been receiving orders from there but they’ve
not been receiving motions.
Judge: But by the same token, did the Holms give an updated, even a P.O.
Box to the department?
Mr. Kirby: Well, they must have because the court picked it up.
Judge: I think the court picked it up from something that was mailed.
Mr. Kirby: Okay well if the clerk picked it up then the state should be
able to pick it up.
****(But not if they don’t want to.)
(The answer here is YES< the state has our mailing address, they just fail
to use it.)
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, we would ask from them that they submit proof that
they provided to the court or to a department or to the GAL a dated
address, not on some random thing that they send into the courtroom that
might be just a returned email, but a return address that is not stating this
is our mailing address, because again, that is what my contention is. They
have not told anyone where they were living. We have no mailing address
for them other than ———————supposition and that’s not good
****(Take note of this. Whenever you inform ANY government agency
anything get a receipt, name, date, and time with the person you gave it to,
photocopy the act, do everything to prevent them from saying it DIDN’T
HAPPEN. Because the record of your action will disappear and you will
need proof.)
Judge: Okay, at this point it is my understanding the parents ———–P.O.
Box 438. Is that the correct box?
Christian: Yes ma’am.
Judge: And what is the zip code?
Mr. Kirby: 32678. Uh, your honor. I’d like to ask Mr. Schlenker a question.
Did either you or Mr. Hamlin get the notice of the civil suit by the Holms?
Either a first or second notice? You’ve seen that, haven’t you?
Judge: That they actually filed suit or are you talking about…
Mr. Kirby: No, no, no, no. It was a notice that the Holms sent out to
government agencies that had their address at the top of it.
Judge: Without this being a discussion…is this what you are talking about?
Mr. Kirby: Yes, right here. Were you given this?
Mr. Schlenker: Actually, no.
Mr. Kirby: You seen that. What’s the address at the top?
Judge: He…he’s not under…
Mr. Kirby: I know. He’s not under..I understand. I’m sorry. But their
address is at the very top of that.
****(You almost got them Mr. Kirby, but when the judge and prosecutor
work together so tight she is going to protect him. Grrr!)
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Kirby: If you say that you mailed something then you ought to have
proof that you mailed it.
Christian: We have ours.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, you put it in an envelope, you mail it. I mean…the
proof is the certificate of service. I hereby certify that I have done this.
****(Don’t worry, Mr. Schlenker. She isn’t going to let anything happen to
you or your case.)
Judge: Well, and I guess the bottom line is, and I certainly don’t know that
this is going to be the contention of the department. They, Mr. and Mrs.
Holm could possibly have someone living in Arizona pickup their P.O.
Box. I don’t know what…
Mr. Kirby: It is forwarded.
Judge: Forwarded, okay. So, if it’s forwarded from Arizona to here and
they are saying they still didn’t get it, and at this point I understand your
aggravation———-. I would agree with you. Because it appears that
there was some motions filed that Mrs. Holm did not get a notice of. With
the exception of that 15 day non parte that they could have objected to,
everything…. that is the crux of the issue. One of them…
Mr. Kirby: Yes. That mainly…you know…of course if you filed something
and you say you served it, I want you to amend you served everybody…
Judge: Well,they…if the department is saying we sent it to this Arizona
Mr. Schlenker: Yes, ma’am.
****(We know they would never lie, right? Even though they have no
proof and by law are supposed to, right? Everybody just go play nice
Judge: And Mrs. Holm is saying there is a forward on that, then at this
point I’m gonna assume the department is asserting correctly they mailed
it. But at this point they are…I saw Mr. Schlenker taken a note so I’m
assuming you changed your address and put it in the file.
(There was NOTHING TO CHANGE, because they already KNEW our
LOCAL, ALabama PO Box. DHR mailed us a letter to that address!! And,
again, where is the mail you supposedly mailed to Arizona!! All the rest of
our mail from the last 6 months that got mailed to Arizona is sitting right
Mr. Schlenker: Yes’m. I have their address now and obviously now that
Mr. Kirby is there that will assure an attorney of record on their side is
served with everything…
Judge: Yes. Yes. That pretty much has cured itself…
(No, it has NOT!! Because the problem that STILL remains, is that DHR
ON PURPOSE did not SERVE us with the opportunity to REBUT their
RIGHTS…..WE were not notified they were going to SUBPEONA
RECORDS, so we could NOT OBJECT!!)
****(Take a note: Lessons on how the state gets around those non-existent
HIPPA protections.)
Mr. Kirby: Right. It has cured itself but here again, your honor, they were
not allowed to…they were not served with a 15 day notice which they
could have moved to quash and…course we are going to move to exclude
those records, but…
Judge: So what relief are you looking for or are you just making the court
aware? I’m making the court aware but I also want…
Judge: Okay, let’s go motion by motion. So we are still on the motion to
bring the evidence that they sent.
Mr. Kirby: Right. We’re still on the motion…I’m sorry. I keep going on at
the court that I’ve upset right now..
Judge: It’s okay. Well, no. It’s not that I’m upset. It’s just that I’m trying to
make sure that I’m staying in the order so that I don’t skip something.
Mr. Kirby: Okay. I just wanted to see evidence, maybe a copy of an
envelope that they sent to the Holms.
Mr. Schlenker: Judge, I don’t make copies of envelopes. It’s not our pattern
of practice. Maybe it’s foolish on my part but I’m not aware of any
attorney that make a xerox of every letter they make and then slide it in
the copier. Maybe that’s Mr. Kirby’s practice. That is not mind. It’s not
required by the rules.
Judge: That’s correct. It is not required.
Christian: He already admitted to having a certificate. So we’ll see.
Mr. Kirby: Well, we were just looking for any evidence that they might
have served the Holms with anything in this case. I guess my frustration
is, your honor, when I had first met the Holms and we were in trial last
Monday, they had not seen anything. Now whether it was provided to their
counsel of before, they did not have copies of anything. And one of the
things in going through with assisting them was to determine that they
were served with them. And we found that they were not served even
though the motions had been decided and the point of the motions was
moot now, they hadn’t been served with records of filing. That’s my
concern and I’m going to leave it at that.
Judge: Okay, but since then…since you were on board and the clerk put
you on the 5th I do believe…
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. I think so.
Judge: Is there anything that you know that you have not gotten?
Mr. Kirby: No, ma’am.
Judge: And you in turn have passed that along to Mr. and Mrs. Holm?
Mr. Kirby: I have passed that…everything that has come out of this court,
any kind of filings, order, whatnot unto the Holms.
Judge: So, we have I guess argued everything and I don’t know, Mr. Kirby,
if you are looking for a ruling from me on the motion to produce evidence
of service or again like you just said it is more of an informative situation
to the court and it appears that it’s going to work hand in hand with other
motions that you filed after the close of business yesterday.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am. It is informative but I would want them to bring
those up, but if it’s going to work hand in hand with other motions that the
Holms have filed.
Christian: (very quiet) I would like to have it on record———————-
Judge: So, make sure I’ve got everything. All right, I have left then the pro
se, totally pro se motion to dismiss and amend a motion to dismiss that
was filed I believe on maybe the 6th right after the first hearing, that Mr.
and Mrs. Holm filed, the handwritten one that they filed and then the
second one had a lot of documentation filed behind it that you said earlier
we will just argue that all at one time.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: Then I have a motion to dismiss filed by last night at 4:42:54pm
consisting of four pages, and after that at 5:47:52 pm a motion to suppress
testimony and records in laminae. That consists of 15 pages.
Mr. Kirby: Yes, ma’am.
Judge: So that’s just clicking down on my list as things appear in order, are
there any other motions pending that you are aware of?
Mr. Kirby: Not that I’m aware of.
Judge: State?
Mr. Schlenker: No ma’am.
Guardian: No ma’am.
Judge: Okay. So, we have the motion to dismiss that was filed last night, a
motion to suppress that was filed last night. Do you want to proceed with
those now or do you all want to take a little break for lunch and come
Mr. Kirby: It shouldn’t take 30 minutes to at least get one motion out of
the way.
Mr. Schlenker: I say keep going. Judge, and before we begin in regards for
the motion to dismiss for dependency, that is —————-than the
petitions that were filed by the parents and looking at rule 6 the state is
entitled to five days notice of this motion. It argues a variety of different
things and again, the state has not been provided an opportunity to prepare
for that motion and have ample time. It was filed at 4:42 yesterday and
again the counsel for the department did not see it until this morning.
Mr. Kirby: What rule are you…?
Mr. Schlenker: Rule six.
Judge: Okay. And since it was set after we were closed yesterday it was
not set for hearing by order because I didn’t see it until this morning to set
Mr. Kirby: I mean it addresses a very simple issue, your honor, that’s
documentary in nature and it’s of the record. So, it’s not like we’d be
introducing any evidence. The state shouldn’t need five days to prepare for
it. So, if the court so ordered, we could move on with it.
Judge: Well, I think that’s one of those if they object that they don’t have
the procedure that it is different of the body of and that they didn’t get five
days notice. I have to give five days.
****(But if it goes against the parents and they were denied their right to
suppress records in a quash, you overlook it. How is that fair? Everything
is for the state and their benefit.)
(Of Course….so this is a motion to dismiss due to LACK OF DUE
PROCESS….BECAUSE….of the issue that was brought up at the
beginning of this audio, that the judge NEVER went back to and diverted
to a new topic….now, we are back onto a motion speaking of those things
and we want to wait FIVE days to go over it….BECAUSE if we were to go
over it NOW you would HAVE TO GIVE OUR BABY BACK…..what does
OUR CHILD…Don’t want to bring this one up yet, do we?? And guess
what…..5 days later….YOU RECUSED YOURSELF rather than
RULING….and now 4 months later WE STILL HAVE NOT GONE OVER
Mr. Schlenker: And judge there is no requirement under the rules that
counsel has to work 24/7 in order to be ready for a trial. So, realistically
counsel has been provided for the department about 10 or 15 minutes to
look at this, and again, without having sufficient time to prepare for it
because it does reference a statute that I do not have a copy of in front of
me, I need more time than just here were go.
(THERE is NOTHING to look over. Facts are FACTS SCHLENKER….you
cannot possibly have any argument against the facts of NO DUE
PROCESS unless you drag this case out for many months and then plant
false evidence of some kind against us….)
Mr. Kirby: You talking about referencing the statute requiring a child
custody affidavit? If you don’t have time, look it up. It’s there on the
(It’s not that they do not have time….they do not want to FACE THE
Mr. Schlenker: You know while I appreciate Mr. Kirby’s ideas on how
long it’s going to take me to research, it is not for him to opine as to what I
should be entitled to do with regards to preparing for a motion. Obviously
he has taken a substantial amount of time in preparing all of these motions
as they have continued to flow in as of the last time we were here. If he
had known he was going to file this motion he could have filed it certainly
before at 4:40 last night.
Mr. Kirby: I guess you could set that out and not hear that today. If this
case goes any further then you could hear it then.
Judge: Well, it does appear from the face of what was filed last night it is
very, very different from the pro se filing of mom and dad. I’m sorry, Mr.
and Mrs. Holm. When they filed their first motion, their hand written
motion and their amended which appeared to be the handwritten motion.
So with it very different the substantive nature of it…
Christian: But, that’s been plenty of time on that one, right?
Mr. Kirby: On the pro se motion?
Judge: Yes. So, the motion to dismiss filed last night at 4:42 we are going
to have to set that for another hearing because the department has not had
five days notice.
(Oh, of course….so that way it gives you time to decide to recuse yourself
so that you dont have to make a ruling on that motion which would
Mr. Kirby: Contingent upon the outcome of that?
Judge: If that’s fine with you?
Mr. Kirby: That’s fine.
Judge: Now, as far as the pro se motion to dismiss…is that something that
needs to be argued now or later?
Mr. Kirby: I think Mr. Holm would like to argue that now.
Christian: Yeah, we would.
Judge: Okay. And that’s going to be a separate because it is from what I’m
reading very separate and distinct in what is within the one that you
assisted and prepared. Yours appears to be more of a procedural, legal,
here’s your statute argument. So with that being in mind, let me make
myself a note here. So the 4:42 motion…so we will set that for argument
by separate order. And the motion to dismiss filed, I believe, on Jan. 6th
and the amended motion as filed by Mr. and Mrs. Holm is the one that we
are here now going to hear argument. Mr. Schlenker, the department has
had ample notice on that one.
Mr. Schlenker: Yes Ma’am. I’m just trying to make sure that I can
———-my statutes…
Christian: I’m trying to make sure we have the right one here. I guess that
this motion is based under lack of evidence of child endangerment, and
under common law we are the manufacturers of our child. The child is our
product under law because we created our child under a Creator, and no
one else did, so we claim lack of jurisdiction, and we call——-on the life
salvage law of common law to retrieve our product, our property. And we
have a manufacturer’s statement of origin and not that we consider
him…uh, well, the law considers him as our property. And we demand for
him to be restored to us immediately without any further torture,
punishment, or coercion, interruption and involvement of the department
of human resources.. That’s all, your honor.
Judge: Mr. Schlenker?
Mr. Schlenker: Your honor, the reason why we are here today is for trial
which is to gather evidence with regards to whether dependency exists. In
some part the motion is premature. Additionally, common law in a great
many ways has been supplanted by statutory law, and the statute clearly
has been invoked in this case (Common Law, is CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW….THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!!). This court clearly has
jurisdiction and a manufacturer’s statement of origin does not override the
statutory parts of this court (So, the statement that WE created OUR
CHILD WITH GOD does not OVERRIDE Man’s LAW….does everyone
get that?!) and the State of Alabama over a child who is found within its
jurisdiction (Notice he did not say found abused/or neglected) to ensure
the safety and welfare of that child. And again, that is the purpose of this
hearing. We understand that Mr. and Mrs. Holm do not agree with that,
but again, we are in the middle of trial for that very reason. That will be
ultimately the determination of the court, hopefully sometime today if not
tomorrow whether or not it meets the statutory definition of dependency at
this point in time. Then we will go from there. But again, otherwise this
court absolutely has jurisdiction which is what I think he kind of was
arguing also. Again, the case is not closed and so a lack of evidence is
(What are your facts and evidence that you have jurisdiction over our
family Schlenker??)
Judge: Anything further Mr. Holms?
Christian: Yes. I would like to state that there is nothing on record showing
the court and DHR have jurisdiction over our child. There is no social
security number, there is no birth certificate. There is nothing that is
claiming any other organization to have jurisdiction of our child. And if
there is then we did not consent of it and we would like to see the law that
DHR and/or courts has jurisdiction of our child now. That’s all.
Judge: And I believe Mr. Kirby as counsel that you can certainly give
advice as to what the jurisdictional law and provisions would be. Anything
further from the department?
will they steamroll us this way!!)
Mr. Schlenker: No
Judge: Guardian?
Guardian: Nothing, your honor.
Judge: At this juncture we have already started testimony. I do think the
motion to dismiss is premature or not ripe for adjudication because this
state does have the right to present their case in their entirety. (NO THEY
CASE LAW!!) What I’m going to do is just withhold ruling on it other than
for that purpose let the state proceed, and then of course Mr. and Mrs.
Holm will have the opportunity to renew that motion if you so choose to
Alright, so, now we are down to—- the last thing I am showing is a
suppressed testimony and records motion ———————-that was filed
last night at 5:47——————

My comments preceded by asterisks and enclosed in parenthesis.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: